K.T. v. L.S.
118 A.3d 1136
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Mother and Father are parents of two young children; Father died in 2013. Paternal grandparents (K.T. and M.R.T.) sought partial physical custody after Mother denied them access.
- Trial court entered an interim custody order (Oct. 2013) granting limited phased-in visitation (summer weeks, holiday overnights, periodic weekends, and weekly Skype), then at trial (Feb. 2014) denied grandparents’ custody complaint and awarded them nothing.
- Trial judge expressed strong skepticism of the Custody Act, initially resisted applying the statutory factors, and relied heavily on the ongoing conflict between Mother and grandparents and the grandparents’ intervention in adoption proceedings.
- This Court vacated and remanded because the trial court failed to analyze the statutory factors (23 Pa.C.S. § 5328(a) and § 5328(c)(1)); the trial court issued a terse remand decision that listed the factors but provided conclusory findings with little record support.
- Appellate court found the remand decision deficient, concluded the trial court misapplied/ignored evidence (e.g., grandparents’ prior caregiving, Mother’s moving and efforts to block contact, and the significance of grandparents’ ties to the children), and held the trial court erred by admitting non‑enumerated criminal-history evidence.
- Disposition: appellate court reversed, ordered entry of the interim custody order as a final order, and remanded with instructions (including fixing Skype within 30 days).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grandparents) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly applied §5328(a) and §5328(c)(1) factors on remand | Court ignored grandparents’ long-standing relationship, gave cursory, conclusory factor analysis, and failed to account for Mother’s conduct that prevented contact | Mother argued conflict and distance make enforced contact harmful; emphasized her primary custody and stability with husband | Reversed: trial court’s remand analysis was perfunctory, many factor findings lacked record support; appellate court ordered interim order be made final |
| Whether denying grandparents partial custody unreasonably cut children off from paternal ancestry | Grandparents asserted public policy and precedent favor preserving intergenerational ties and that denial severed paternal lineage contrary to children’s best interests | Mother argued grandparents are unnecessary, conflict is unfixable, and family unit with husband is stable | Reversed: appellate court emphasized policy favoring grandparent involvement and that trial court failed to weigh grandparents’ beneficial role |
| Admissibility of non-enumerated criminal/motor-vehicle convictions | Grandparents argued §5329 limits criminal-history relevance to the enumerated offenses; non‑enumerated convictions were inadmissible and prejudicial | Mother contended background convictions were relevant under §5328(a)(16) and general best-interest inquiry | Reversed error: court should not have admitted non-enumerated convictions for custody relevance; admission was legally improper under §5329 and ejusdem generis principles |
| Whether the interim custody order should be entered as final | Grandparents sought enforcement of interim schedule as final to preserve contact and ancestral ties | Mother opposed enforcement and maintained reasons for denying visitation | Appellate court ordered entry of the interim order as final and remanded for compliance (including Skype functionality) |
Key Cases Cited
- R.M.G., Jr. v. F.M.G., 986 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of appellate review in custody matters)
- Bovard v. Baker, 775 A.2d 835 (Pa. Super. 2001) (review scope for trial court findings)
- S.M. v. J.M., 811 A.2d 621 (Pa. Super. 2002) (best-interest standard and deference to trial court)
- M.J.M. v. M.L.G., 63 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court must consider statutory factors; no required level of detail beyond showing consideration)
- J.R.M. v. J.E.A., 33 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2011) (all §5328(a) factors must be considered)
- E.D. v. M.P., 33 A.3d 73 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court must analyze best-interest factors when awarding custody)
- Hiller v. Fausey, 904 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2006) (recognizing benefits of grandparent-grandchild ties and limited circumstances to override a fit parent's decision)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Williams v. Miller, 385 A.2d 992 (Pa. Super. 1978) (custodial-parent animosity alone is insufficient to deny grandparent visitation; court must assess actual effect on child)
- Johnson v. Diesinger, 589 A.2d 1160 (Pa. Super. 1991) (focus on effect of animosity on child, not fault)
- Ketterer v. Seifert, 902 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appellate relief available for manifestly unreasonable custody orders)
- V.B. v. J.E.B., 55 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate court may correct custody orders that are an abuse of discretion)
- Ramer v. Ramer, 914 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 2006) (legislative intent behind enumerated-crimes custody inquiry)
- McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pennsylvania, 686 A.2d 801 (Pa. 1996) (ejusdem generis canon of statutory construction)